Abbas Abdulrazaq Hashim Kareem

Department of English

“Emotive Language in Conflict Reporting”

• Introduction

Conflict reporting has the power to influence public opinion, policy, and the future remembrance of significant events. The deliberate use of emotional language by writers and media outlets, aimed at piqueing people’s interest, evoking emotions, and framing issues in specific ways, lies at the core of this impact. The article talks about the importance of using emotional language in conflict reports, looking at how it affects how people think and make decisions.

When talking about the current war between Russia and Ukraine, the media often use words like “invasion,” “resistance,” “atrocity,” and “genocide” to explain what is happening. Headlines like “Civilian Lives Shattered by Russian Aggression” or “Ukrainian Heroes Defend Their Homeland” make people feel sorry for Ukraine while making Russia look like the perpetrator. This kind of wording affects how people feel, often making them angry, united, or in a hurry. Even though these emotional arguments are strong, they risk making the complicated global facts of the war too simple.

• What is Emotive Language?

Emotive language is the use of words and sentences that are meant to make people feel something. Emotional language, on the other hand, often speaks to feelings like anger, fear, sympathy, or hope, which changes how people understand what’s happening. In the Ukraine-Russia conflict, for example, terms like “war crimes,” “victims,” and “occupation” frame the situation in morally charged ways. Mallidis (2017) talks about how emotional language makes emotional connections between messages and people who see them in media. Wales (2001) discusses how connotations and emotional undertones in language influence audience perception. Such language not only conveys facts but also influences how the audience perceives the motives, actions, and legitimacy of the parties involved. Crystal (2003) highlights how emotive language creates a subjective lens through which readers interpret events. This piece says that using emotional words when reporting on conflicts is like a double-edged sword. It can make people more aware of pain and make it seem more real, but it also has the potential to twist facts, widen disagreements, and sway public opinion towards extreme positions. We can learn more about the moral and practical effects of using emotional language in modern news by looking at how it was used strategically in the war between Russia and Ukraine.

• Key Features of Emotive Language 

A-Connotations: Chandler (2017) examines connotation within the framework of language and cultural semiotics, highlighting the process by which signals get multifaceted meanings. Barthes (1964) examines how connotations transcend language, influencing perception via visual and cultural symbols. Words have meanings that go beyond their precise meanings, and they often make us feel something. “Freedom” might make you think of hope, while “oppression” might make you think of fear and unfairness. Connotations have three types: the first type, positive connotation, elicits favorable emotions (e.g., “youthful” implies energy and vigor). The second type, Negative Connotation: Elicits unfavorable feelings (e.g., “childish” suggesting immaturity). The third type is neutral connotation: absence of emotional intensity and maintenance of objectivity (e.g., “young” as a factual designation).

B- Emotive Verbs and Adjectives: Emotive verbs and adjectives are language instruments that convey emotional significance and elicit certain sentiments, attitudes, or responses from the audience. They serve to convey and evoke emotions, amplify meaning, and establish a profound connection between the message and its listener. Emotive verbs that explicitly articulate emotions or feelings and often reflect the speaker’s perspective on the issue or circumstance. For example, devastate: “Russian missile strikes continue to devastate civilian neighborhoods.” Plead: “Leaders plead for international intervention to stop the aggression.” Ravage: “The war has ravaged key infrastructure, leaving millions in despair.”. Emotive adjectives that elicit an emotional reaction, whether favorable or unfavorable, by characterizing a topic in emotionally charged language. For example, Tragic: “The tragic loss of life on both sides highlights the futility of war.” Brutal: “Brutal attacks on civilians have drawn widespread condemnation.”.

C- Metaphors and Imagery: The use of metaphorical language, such as characterizing a dispute as a “storm” or “firestorm of violence,” generates vivid mental imagery that intensifies emotional reactions. Metaphors take ambiguous or hard-to-understand ideas and turn them into regularly understandable ones. This helps the audience connect mentally and better understand what’s going on. For example, “David vs. Goliath”: Often used to talk about Ukraine’s fight against Russia, which has stronger military power. “Tsunami of Refugees”: Millions of people have had to leave their homes because of the war.

Imagery in Media Reporting often surpasses literal descriptions in potency since it conjures vivid mental representations that create enduring impressions. Destroyed and Ruined: Pictures of towns that have been bombed, fields that have been burned, and broken buildings are used to show how bad the war is.

4. Emotive vs. Neutral Reporting

  Neutral Reporting:

Neutral language prioritizes objectivity and factual clarity, avoiding emotionally charged  terms. For example, a neutral report might state: “The region experienced significant casualties.”

Emotive Reporting:

Emotive language, on the other hand, conveys the same information but adds an emotional layer, such as: “The region was devastated by a horrific attack, leaving countless lives shattered.” This difference illustrates how language choice can color the audience’s perception of events.

5-Conclusion

In war reporting, emotive language is a potent instrument that may sway public opinion, inspire humanitarian efforts, and have an impact on legislative choices. Words like “invasion,” “genocide,” and “atrocity” arouse powerful emotions that may either polarize conversations or promote empathy and unity, as seen in the context of the war between Russia and Ukraine. These emotive pleas run the danger of oversimplifying intricate geopolitical facts and undermining journalistic neutrality, even while they may successfully draw attention to the human cost of combat. Because expressive language has two sides, it must be carefully considered. Its capacity to emotionally captivate audiences is crucial for bringing injustice and suffering to light, but overuse or prejudice may skew facts, increase hostilities, and damage credibility. For journalism to be morally sound and have an effect, accuracy and empathy must be balanced.

Journalists and media organizations have a big role to play in covering conflicts. They may make sure that their reporting educates rather than incites by balancing emotional language with factual integrity, following rules for conflict-sensitive journalism, and placing a high value on accountability and openness. In the end, the difficulty is in using passionate language as a bridge to understanding rather than as a tool for manipulation, encouraging thoughtful and productive discussion about the most important issues facing the globe.

References 

Barthes, R. (1964). Rhetoric of the Image. In Image-Music-Text. Fontana Press.

Chandler, D. (2017). Semiotics: The Basics (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Tsitsanoudis-Mallidis, N. (2017). The Power of Emotive Language in Media Communication. Journal of Media Studies, 45(3), 120–135.

Wales, K. (2001). A Dictionary of Stylistics (2nd ed.). Longman.